I was still a good war, just shoulda been made under different pretences.
The problem was a marketing problem.
When you go to war you preach pragmatics, after you win, you preach ideals. Bush got the formula backwards.
As for the rest of the miserable parts of the world that could use a little American interference. What would the left say? The case against Iraq, the very same case that America moved increasingly away from, was just -- that is, UN defiance (an interesting irony, nes pas?) the Kurds, and human rights.
To me this is enough to go anywhere, but money and self interest prevent it in the rest of those parts. In iraq, altruistic interests and self interests coalesced upon an easily defeated enemy. Bingo. Perfect war, if you don't screw up the marketting.
I don't doubt Iraq sought nukes, whether they were still seeking them after 96, who cares, it is enough to me that the same man who did still ran the country untill very recently.
Who's better off after the war?
The Kurds (and we owe them) but we have to see how they behave now.
Iraqi Dissidents
Iraqi pluralists
Orphans
Who's worse off?
The Ba'aath Party, and the Bush admin. (People from all sides can find reason to celebrate)
Who's injured?
Soldiers (as always), relatively few people, and a few relatively large egos.
PS.
Now mebbe it's just me, but I liked Fellowship better when I felt his depressing naivete was just a cover for an ugly neo-con core, now it just might be depressing naivete??? eeek
I struggled, in my mind, over the issue of going to war with Iraq - as most did. In the end, I decided I would have to trust The Administration, and that I would, you know, "support our troops." I distinctly remember discussing this with my wife, and saying something like, "If it turns out that this war was sold to us with lies or half-truths made the Bush administration, I am going to be pissed off." My wife (who also voted for Bush, by the way) completely agreed.
Basically, if Bush lied about this stuff (oath or not), I want him out. It doesn't matter whether Iraq is better off now. I mean, come on, the President shouldn't lie to the public to get what he wants. I think you'll find a lot of conservatives will be very upset by this. We aren't all Bush-lovers in the same (yet opposite) way that some are Bush-haters.
I can't speak for all conservatives, but I can speak for myself (as a conservative): I won't put up with crap like that from my President.
Its the sort of thing that gets the demos's pissed for sure but ALSO, reagan democrats, RINOs and more moderate republicans.
It will only take a few percentange to win the next election. (or another supreme court) and when he starts doing things that piss people in his OWN party, then karl rove had better invent some new bogeyman cause this bush be burnt.
As a Federal Prosecuter, I thought perhaps I would weigh in. It's been months since I last posted, but I felt that some of the ignorant rhetoric that has been thrown around here needed some counter-point.
First of all, there is no evidence that Bush lied. In fact there isn't even an allegation that Bush lied, except within the most ultra-liberal circles. Even Daschle said that we should wait and find out more information before we rush to any judgement. It is without debate that he made a statement that was based on incorrect information, however that doesn't make it a lie - it makes it a mistake.
Now, time will tell whether or not they knew it wasn't true. If this is the case, it would be a lie, and there would be a consequence to pay.
HOWEVER, to compare it to Clinton, or to say he should be impeached is ridiculous!!!! President Clinton broke the law. He committed perjury before a Federal Grand Jury. Whether or not he should have ever been there is not relevant. You can argue all day who's business his sex life is, the fact of the matter is, he lied under oath. He violated the law and from the highest member of the executive branch, that is unacceptable.
How does this compare to what Bush did? Did he lie? At this point, there is no reason to believe he did. Was he wrong? Yes.
Are either of these things illegal? No! A President can only be impeached for that which is illegal? Even if the president had lied during the State of the Union Address (which I do not believe he did) that would not be unconstitutional, or illegal. He is not under oath for that speech! Would it be wrong? Absolutely... would there be consequences, absolutely, but there would be a long way to go to impeachment.
The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high
crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious".
It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which
could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.
Clinton was not impeached for his sexually deviant behavior but because he gave false testimony under oath before a Federal Grand Jury.
Bush has made a serious error, but it's not illegal, and it wasn't a lie intended to deceive the American people.
Furthermore, this isn't even a story!! The White House made a statement that "Knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech," (from a senior Bush administration official)
They used intelligence that proved faulty, and they came forward and acknowledged it. How does this compare to the predecessor who lied under oath, and then to cover it up spent months and millions trying to split hairs on the word sex.
How does it not demonstrate the highest level of integrity to say "We made a mistake when we said that. We shouldn't have said it because the information later proved to be false."
As a Federal Prosecuter, I thought perhaps I would weigh in. It's been months since I last posted, but I felt that some of the ignorant rhetoric that has been thrown around here needed some counter-point.
First of all, there is no evidence that Bush lied. In fact there isn't even an allegation that Bush lied, except within the most ultra-liberal circles. Even Daschle said that we should wait and find out more information before we rush to any judgement. It is without debate that he made a statement that was based on incorrect information, however that doesn't make it a lie - it makes it a mistake.
Now, time will tell whether or not they knew it wasn't true. If this is the case, it would be a lie, and there would be a consequence to pay.
HOWEVER, to compare it to Clinton, or to say he should be impeached is ridiculous!!!! President Clinton broke the law. He committed perjury before a Federal Grand Jury. Whether or not he should have ever been there is not relevant. You can argue all day who's business his sex life is, the fact of the matter is, he lied under oath. He violated the law and from the highest member of the executive branch, that is unacceptable.
How does this compare to what Bush did? Did he lie? At this point, there is no reason to believe he did. Was he wrong? Yes.
Are either of these things illegal? No! A President can only be impeached for that which is illegal? Even if the president had lied during the State of the Union Address (which I do not believe he did) that would not be unconstitutional, or illegal. He is not under oath for that speech! Would it be wrong? Absolutely... would there be consequences, absolutely, but there would be a long way to go to impeachment.
The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high
crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious".
It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which
could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.
Clinton was not impeached for his sexually deviant behavior but because he gave false testimony under oath before a Federal Grand Jury.
Bush has made a serious error, but it's not illegal, and it wasn't a lie intended to deceive the American people.
Furthermore, this isn't even a story!! The White House made a statement that "Knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech," (from a senior Bush administration official)
They used intelligence that proved faulty, and they came forward and acknowledged it. How does this compare to the predecessor who lied under oath, and then to cover it up spent months and millions trying to split hairs on the word sex.
How does it not demonstrate the highest level of integrity to say "We made a mistake when we said that. We shouldn't have said it because the information later proved to be false."
This sounds like purley subjective opinion. Also you're drawing a conclusion without all the facts or any kind of investigation. You're also asking us to take the White House's story at face value.
Your second paragraph indicates your bias on the subject.
Actually, the only part that would be an opinion would be that I don't believe he intended to deceive anyone. The rest of it is fact. Where did he do anything illegal? As a Federal Prosecuter this is exactly the sort of question I look at everyday?
Am I a conservative? Yes, does that mean I like Bush, sure, but I'm also an officer of the court and am able to examine the situation as a legal question. Did Bush do anything illegal? No.
Did he lie? I don't believe so, and there's no evidence at this point to indicate otherwise.
If you could perhaps show me evidence that he lied, or show me some law that was violated I would certainly think differently.
Actually, the only part that would be an opinion would be that I don't believe he intended to deceive anyone. The rest of it is fact. Where did he do anything illegal? As a Federal Prosecuter this is exactly the sort of question I look at everyday?
Am I a conservative? Yes, does that mean I like Bush, sure, but I'm also an officer of the court and am able to examine the situation as a legal question. Did Bush do anything illegal? No.
Did he lie? I don't believe so, and there's no evidence at this point to indicate otherwise.
If you could perhaps show me evidence that he lied, or show me some law that was violated I would certainly think differently.
This is yet to be seen. The idea that Bush or his staff are this inept is very hard to swallow. If they truly are or they lied they should be replaced in the next election. We need to know.
You can't possibly draw a conclusion without more knowlege of what transpired. It's very suspicious.
Only time and an investigation would tell. If he did lie you can't expect me to believe lying to gather support to start a war would be taken lightly. Legal or illegal.
I wonder what would have happened if they had just taken Nixon's word at face value?
Am I a liberal? Sure! And I don't have your blind faith in Bush and company.
I struggled, in my mind, over the issue of going to war with Iraq - as most did. In the end, I decided I would have to trust The Administration, and that I would, you know, "support our troops." I distinctly remember discussing this with my wife, and saying something like, "If it turns out that this war was sold to us with lies or half-truths made the Bush administration, I am going to be pissed off." My wife (who also voted for Bush, by the way) completely agreed.
Basically, if Bush lied about this stuff (oath or not), I want him out. It doesn't matter whether Iraq is better off now. I mean, come on, the President shouldn't lie to the public to get what he wants. I think you'll find a lot of conservatives will be very upset by this. We aren't all Bush-lovers in the same (yet opposite) way that some are Bush-haters.
I can't speak for all conservatives, but I can speak for myself (as a conservative): I won't put up with crap like that from my President.
This is such a treat to see!!!! Integrity is the key and it is so very welcome to see!
Now mebbe it's just me, but I liked Fellowship better when I felt his depressing naivete was just a cover for an ugly neo-con core, now it just might be depressing naivete??? eeek
You know Matsu... I love you and all... But.. I have to say your "moral neutral" stance is something I can never subscribe to. I believe in morals, justice and the rule of law. It seems to me the more I read your style of thinking that you subscribe to a philosophy very similar in nature to Nazi core beliefs. Everything seems to be an end that can be sold with the proper "marketing" no concern with human rights or law.
I could not disagree with your philosophy more. I realize you have to reduce me to terms such as you do above in your quote but who are you fooling Matsu?
I mean really? I have integrity and that seems to worry you? I am naive?
Sorry, nice try.
You are free to your style of "moral neutral" view, I would just submit it is dangerous for humanity and a better philosophy is one of pluralism and the rule of law being followed.
Are either of these things illegal? No! A President can only be impeached for that which is illegal? Even if the president had lied during the State of the Union Address (which I do not believe he did) that would not be unconstitutional, or illegal. He is not under oath for that speech! Would it be wrong? Absolutely... would there be consequences, absolutely, but there would be a long way to go to impeachment.
A president could be impeached for anything Congress say he could be impeached for. Impeachment is entirely political, and is not reviewable by the courts. For that reason, a specific violation of law isn't necessary unless members of Congress think it's necessary.
But I'm sure some trumped-up charge could be brought against him - that's what you federal prosecutors do, right?
To get the ball rolling:
1. Violation of the UN Charter, and therefore the supreme law of the land, for invading Iraq without UN authorization.
2. Not obtaining a declaration of war from Congress before going to war.
3. Not upholding his oath to preserve protect and defend the constitution when he holds individuals without trial and monitors attorney-client communications.
I'm sure you could come up with others if you set your mind to it.
During the first and second world wars ( especially the second ) the President's of the day, encouraged either directly or indirectly the violation of citizens rights. (holding japanese americans in custody, along with the harrasment of germans & italians )
These groups were subjected to vilifications of the worst kinds. All sorts of horrid lies were spread to engender hatred in the minds of americans.
If Bush should be charged with lying, or particiating in a wilful fabrication, then he, along with these other former presidents should also be charged.
Nothing is so cut an dry any more, the whole trouble is that, we have entered a whole new reality, where countries no longer declare war in the good old fashioned way..
Civilians and cities are part of the front line..and even that is a old fashioned concept..because the front line is more a mental state than a physically continuous line...\
I'm aware that you're not an attorney, or very learned in the law, but you're also flat out wrong.
Article II Section 4 of the US Constitution says:
"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."
There are specific crimes included there. And as we all know, a President would then have to be convicted of those crimes he was impeached on for there to be any legal consequence.
Additionally... Article II, Section 4 is found in the US Constitution, and has nothing to do with the UN Charter. You do not violate the laws of the United States by "violating the UN Charter" which isn't what happened anyway. The UN voted more than 4 times to authorize force against IRAQ in the event of a breach of resolutions.
You can only be held accountable in the United States for Violating the laws of the United States.
Furthermore, the PResident did have Congressional approval for the war.
Oh and by the way, in Section 2 of the same Article: "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States"
The President doesn't need Congressional approval to send troops anywhere, or "invade" any country.
"not obtaining a declaration of war from Congress," isn't a breach of the law or a violation against the constitution.
By the way Article I, Section 8 simply says this about Congresses role in war "Congress shall have the power.... To declare war,...."
Citizens of a foreign country arrested as military combatants have no constitutional rights. Bush has violated no ones rights by holding prisoners of war without a trial or priviledge of representation.
Perhaps if you studied a little more instead of repeating mindless rhetoric, you'd realize that everything Bush has done has been "in defense of the constitution and to protect the United States!!!!!!!!!!"
Citizens of a foreign country arrested as military combatants have no constitutional rights. Bush has violated no ones rights by holding prisoners of war without a trial or priviledge of representation.
Yes. Since you are federal prosecuter I'm sure you really appreciate the bullshit semantics games being played by calling people unlawful combatants and thus circumventing the Geneva Convention. So much for the spirit of the law.
Comments
Here's to Fellowship!
The problem was a marketing problem.
When you go to war you preach pragmatics, after you win, you preach ideals. Bush got the formula backwards.
As for the rest of the miserable parts of the world that could use a little American interference. What would the left say? The case against Iraq, the very same case that America moved increasingly away from, was just -- that is, UN defiance (an interesting irony, nes pas?) the Kurds, and human rights.
To me this is enough to go anywhere, but money and self interest prevent it in the rest of those parts. In iraq, altruistic interests and self interests coalesced upon an easily defeated enemy. Bingo. Perfect war, if you don't screw up the marketting.
I don't doubt Iraq sought nukes, whether they were still seeking them after 96, who cares, it is enough to me that the same man who did still ran the country untill very recently.
Who's better off after the war?
The Kurds (and we owe them) but we have to see how they behave now.
Iraqi Dissidents
Iraqi pluralists
Orphans
Who's worse off?
The Ba'aath Party, and the Bush admin. (People from all sides can find reason to celebrate)
Who's injured?
Soldiers (as always), relatively few people, and a few relatively large egos.
PS.
Now mebbe it's just me, but I liked Fellowship better when I felt his depressing naivete was just a cover for an ugly neo-con core, now it just might be depressing naivete??? eeek
I struggled, in my mind, over the issue of going to war with Iraq - as most did. In the end, I decided I would have to trust The Administration, and that I would, you know, "support our troops." I distinctly remember discussing this with my wife, and saying something like, "If it turns out that this war was sold to us with lies or half-truths made the Bush administration, I am going to be pissed off." My wife (who also voted for Bush, by the way) completely agreed.
Basically, if Bush lied about this stuff (oath or not), I want him out. It doesn't matter whether Iraq is better off now. I mean, come on, the President shouldn't lie to the public to get what he wants. I think you'll find a lot of conservatives will be very upset by this. We aren't all Bush-lovers in the same (yet opposite) way that some are Bush-haters.
I can't speak for all conservatives, but I can speak for myself (as a conservative): I won't put up with crap like that from my President.
Its the sort of thing that gets the demos's pissed for sure but ALSO, reagan democrats, RINOs and more moderate republicans.
It will only take a few percentange to win the next election. (or another supreme court) and when he starts doing things that piss people in his OWN party, then karl rove had better invent some new bogeyman cause this bush be burnt.
But the CBS News story I posted with basically the same info is credible.
Originally posted by jante99
Just to clerify this thread.
First of all, there is no evidence that Bush lied. In fact there isn't even an allegation that Bush lied, except within the most ultra-liberal circles. Even Daschle said that we should wait and find out more information before we rush to any judgement. It is without debate that he made a statement that was based on incorrect information, however that doesn't make it a lie - it makes it a mistake.
Now, time will tell whether or not they knew it wasn't true. If this is the case, it would be a lie, and there would be a consequence to pay.
HOWEVER, to compare it to Clinton, or to say he should be impeached is ridiculous!!!! President Clinton broke the law. He committed perjury before a Federal Grand Jury. Whether or not he should have ever been there is not relevant. You can argue all day who's business his sex life is, the fact of the matter is, he lied under oath. He violated the law and from the highest member of the executive branch, that is unacceptable.
How does this compare to what Bush did? Did he lie? At this point, there is no reason to believe he did. Was he wrong? Yes.
Are either of these things illegal? No! A President can only be impeached for that which is illegal? Even if the president had lied during the State of the Union Address (which I do not believe he did) that would not be unconstitutional, or illegal. He is not under oath for that speech! Would it be wrong? Absolutely... would there be consequences, absolutely, but there would be a long way to go to impeachment.
The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high
crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious".
It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which
could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.
Clinton was not impeached for his sexually deviant behavior but because he gave false testimony under oath before a Federal Grand Jury.
Bush has made a serious error, but it's not illegal, and it wasn't a lie intended to deceive the American people.
Furthermore, this isn't even a story!! The White House made a statement that "Knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech," (from a senior Bush administration official)
They used intelligence that proved faulty, and they came forward and acknowledged it. How does this compare to the predecessor who lied under oath, and then to cover it up spent months and millions trying to split hairs on the word sex.
How does it not demonstrate the highest level of integrity to say "We made a mistake when we said that. We shouldn't have said it because the information later proved to be false."
Originally posted by OBJRA10
As a Federal Prosecuter, I thought perhaps I would weigh in. It's been months since I last posted, but I felt that some of the ignorant rhetoric that has been thrown around here needed some counter-point.
First of all, there is no evidence that Bush lied. In fact there isn't even an allegation that Bush lied, except within the most ultra-liberal circles. Even Daschle said that we should wait and find out more information before we rush to any judgement. It is without debate that he made a statement that was based on incorrect information, however that doesn't make it a lie - it makes it a mistake.
Now, time will tell whether or not they knew it wasn't true. If this is the case, it would be a lie, and there would be a consequence to pay.
HOWEVER, to compare it to Clinton, or to say he should be impeached is ridiculous!!!! President Clinton broke the law. He committed perjury before a Federal Grand Jury. Whether or not he should have ever been there is not relevant. You can argue all day who's business his sex life is, the fact of the matter is, he lied under oath. He violated the law and from the highest member of the executive branch, that is unacceptable.
How does this compare to what Bush did? Did he lie? At this point, there is no reason to believe he did. Was he wrong? Yes.
Are either of these things illegal? No! A President can only be impeached for that which is illegal? Even if the president had lied during the State of the Union Address (which I do not believe he did) that would not be unconstitutional, or illegal. He is not under oath for that speech! Would it be wrong? Absolutely... would there be consequences, absolutely, but there would be a long way to go to impeachment.
The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high
crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious".
It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which
could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.
Clinton was not impeached for his sexually deviant behavior but because he gave false testimony under oath before a Federal Grand Jury.
Bush has made a serious error, but it's not illegal, and it wasn't a lie intended to deceive the American people.
Furthermore, this isn't even a story!! The White House made a statement that "Knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech," (from a senior Bush administration official)
They used intelligence that proved faulty, and they came forward and acknowledged it. How does this compare to the predecessor who lied under oath, and then to cover it up spent months and millions trying to split hairs on the word sex.
How does it not demonstrate the highest level of integrity to say "We made a mistake when we said that. We shouldn't have said it because the information later proved to be false."
------------------------------------------------------------
" Bush has made a serious error, but it's not illegal, and it wasn't a lie intended to deceive the American people. "
------------------------------------------------------------
This sounds like purley subjective opinion. Also you're drawing a conclusion without all the facts or any kind of investigation. You're also asking us to take the White House's story at face value.
Your second paragraph indicates your bias on the subject.
I would expect more from a federal prosecutor.
Am I a conservative? Yes, does that mean I like Bush, sure, but I'm also an officer of the court and am able to examine the situation as a legal question. Did Bush do anything illegal? No.
Did he lie? I don't believe so, and there's no evidence at this point to indicate otherwise.
If you could perhaps show me evidence that he lied, or show me some law that was violated I would certainly think differently.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Actually, the only part that would be an opinion would be that I don't believe he intended to deceive anyone. The rest of it is fact. Where did he do anything illegal? As a Federal Prosecuter this is exactly the sort of question I look at everyday?
Am I a conservative? Yes, does that mean I like Bush, sure, but I'm also an officer of the court and am able to examine the situation as a legal question. Did Bush do anything illegal? No.
Did he lie? I don't believe so, and there's no evidence at this point to indicate otherwise.
If you could perhaps show me evidence that he lied, or show me some law that was violated I would certainly think differently.
This is yet to be seen. The idea that Bush or his staff are this inept is very hard to swallow. If they truly are or they lied they should be replaced in the next election. We need to know.
-------------------------------------------------------------
" Did Bush do anything illegal? " " Did he lie? "
-------------------------------------------------------------
You can't possibly draw a conclusion without more knowlege of what transpired. It's very suspicious.
Only time and an investigation would tell. If he did lie you can't expect me to believe lying to gather support to start a war would be taken lightly. Legal or illegal.
I wonder what would have happened if they had just taken Nixon's word at face value?
Am I a liberal? Sure! And I don't have your blind faith in Bush and company.
Originally posted by spotcatbug
I voted for Bush.
I struggled, in my mind, over the issue of going to war with Iraq - as most did. In the end, I decided I would have to trust The Administration, and that I would, you know, "support our troops." I distinctly remember discussing this with my wife, and saying something like, "If it turns out that this war was sold to us with lies or half-truths made the Bush administration, I am going to be pissed off." My wife (who also voted for Bush, by the way) completely agreed.
Basically, if Bush lied about this stuff (oath or not), I want him out. It doesn't matter whether Iraq is better off now. I mean, come on, the President shouldn't lie to the public to get what he wants. I think you'll find a lot of conservatives will be very upset by this. We aren't all Bush-lovers in the same (yet opposite) way that some are Bush-haters.
I can't speak for all conservatives, but I can speak for myself (as a conservative): I won't put up with crap like that from my President.
This is such a treat to see!!!! Integrity is the key and it is so very welcome to see!
This post is power!
Fellowship
Originally posted by Matsu
PS.
Now mebbe it's just me, but I liked Fellowship better when I felt his depressing naivete was just a cover for an ugly neo-con core, now it just might be depressing naivete??? eeek
You know Matsu... I love you and all... But.. I have to say your "moral neutral" stance is something I can never subscribe to. I believe in morals, justice and the rule of law. It seems to me the more I read your style of thinking that you subscribe to a philosophy very similar in nature to Nazi core beliefs. Everything seems to be an end that can be sold with the proper "marketing" no concern with human rights or law.
I could not disagree with your philosophy more. I realize you have to reduce me to terms such as you do above in your quote but who are you fooling Matsu?
I mean really? I have integrity and that seems to worry you? I am naive?
Sorry, nice try.
You are free to your style of "moral neutral" view, I would just submit it is dangerous for humanity and a better philosophy is one of pluralism and the rule of law being followed.
With all due respect,
Fellowship
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Are either of these things illegal? No! A President can only be impeached for that which is illegal? Even if the president had lied during the State of the Union Address (which I do not believe he did) that would not be unconstitutional, or illegal. He is not under oath for that speech! Would it be wrong? Absolutely... would there be consequences, absolutely, but there would be a long way to go to impeachment.
A president could be impeached for anything Congress say he could be impeached for. Impeachment is entirely political, and is not reviewable by the courts. For that reason, a specific violation of law isn't necessary unless members of Congress think it's necessary.
But I'm sure some trumped-up charge could be brought against him - that's what you federal prosecutors do, right?
To get the ball rolling:
1. Violation of the UN Charter, and therefore the supreme law of the land, for invading Iraq without UN authorization.
2. Not obtaining a declaration of war from Congress before going to war.
3. Not upholding his oath to preserve protect and defend the constitution when he holds individuals without trial and monitors attorney-client communications.
I'm sure you could come up with others if you set your mind to it.
These groups were subjected to vilifications of the worst kinds. All sorts of horrid lies were spread to engender hatred in the minds of americans.
If Bush should be charged with lying, or particiating in a wilful fabrication, then he, along with these other former presidents should also be charged.
Nothing is so cut an dry any more, the whole trouble is that, we have entered a whole new reality, where countries no longer declare war in the good old fashioned way..
Civilians and cities are part of the front line..and even that is a old fashioned concept..because the front line is more a mental state than a physically continuous line...
Article II Section 4 of the US Constitution says:
"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."
There are specific crimes included there. And as we all know, a President would then have to be convicted of those crimes he was impeached on for there to be any legal consequence.
Additionally... Article II, Section 4 is found in the US Constitution, and has nothing to do with the UN Charter. You do not violate the laws of the United States by "violating the UN Charter" which isn't what happened anyway. The UN voted more than 4 times to authorize force against IRAQ in the event of a breach of resolutions.
You can only be held accountable in the United States for Violating the laws of the United States.
Furthermore, the PResident did have Congressional approval for the war.
Oh and by the way, in Section 2 of the same Article: "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States"
The President doesn't need Congressional approval to send troops anywhere, or "invade" any country.
"not obtaining a declaration of war from Congress," isn't a breach of the law or a violation against the constitution.
By the way Article I, Section 8 simply says this about Congresses role in war "Congress shall have the power.... To declare war,...."
Citizens of a foreign country arrested as military combatants have no constitutional rights. Bush has violated no ones rights by holding prisoners of war without a trial or priviledge of representation.
Perhaps if you studied a little more instead of repeating mindless rhetoric, you'd realize that everything Bush has done has been "in defense of the constitution and to protect the United States!!!!!!!!!!"
Hope your not aiming at me...( he says while putting on tin helmet and jumping into trench )
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Citizens of a foreign country arrested as military combatants have no constitutional rights. Bush has violated no ones rights by holding prisoners of war without a trial or priviledge of representation.
Yes. Since you are federal prosecuter I'm sure you really appreciate the bullshit semantics games being played by calling people unlawful combatants and thus circumventing the Geneva Convention. So much for the spirit of the law.
What is one OBJRA10 at the bottom of the ocean?
A good start.
Originally posted by BR
unarmed combatants..?
And there should be a special class for oxy-morons .
Originally posted by aquafire
And there should be a special class for oxy-morons .
Whoops. Unlawful combatant. My mistake. It's late. Sue me.