Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Democrats say No impeachment for Bush

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Democrats say No impeachment for Bush

    The Democratic party leadership has confirmed that they will not persue any investigations or impeachment proceedings against President Bush. This just confirms that both parties are the same and that they are working together to oppress the american people. We have every reason in the world to have the President Impeached and more than enough evidence to indict him and every member of his adminstration for treason.and crimes against humanity. Members of the democratic party need to wake up and realize that they're leadership is controled by a pack of crimminals just like the leadership of the republican party.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAGCgY4PDNA&eurl=
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051101950.html
    http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/...s_old_boss.htm
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...deansaysno.htm
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904

  • #2
    Originally posted by maddog88 View Post
    The Democratic party leadership has confirmed that they will not persue any investigations or impeachment proceedings against President Bush. This just confirms that both parties are the same and that they are working together to oppress the american people. We have every reason in the world to have the President Impeached and more than enough evidence to indict him and every member of his adminstration for treason.and crimes against humanity. Members of the democratic party need to wake up and realize that they're leadership is controled by a pack of crimminals just like the leadership of the republican party.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAGCgY4PDNA&eurl=
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051101950.html
    http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/...s_old_boss.htm
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...deansaysno.htm
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904
    Maddog,

    I'm not convinced about impeachment. Can you choose one member of the administration and present your case for impeachment. No big hand waving, but actual evidence that you wish to enter into the record. Thanks.
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

    Comment


    • #3
      It's all counter productive anyway. As the Republicans demonstrated with Clinton, all they achieved was to weaken the presidency and distract the executive from its proper function, just for the sake of making the man say he'd had his **** sucked in public. Good to see the Democrats have more sense.
      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

      Leibniz

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by parihaka View Post
        It's all counter productive anyway. As the Republicans demonstrated with Clinton, all they achieved was to weaken the presidency and distract the executive from its proper function, just for the sake of making the man say he'd had his **** sucked in public. Good to see the Democrats have more sense.
        What about all the ppl that they are directly or indirectly reponsible for killing and torturing for the last 5 years? Whose gonna hold them to account on that one?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by lulldapull View Post
          What about all the ppl that they are directly or indirectly reponsible for killing and torturing for the last 5 years? Whose gonna hold them to account on that one?
          Who have they killed in contravention of law?
          "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by shek View Post
            Who have they killed in contravention of law?
            If Rumsfeld is now open to impeachment, that should also open the door for Bush, Chenny, Wolfowitz, Perle and the whole Neocon cabal in Washington.

            Setting up and institutionalising torture is a very serious crime. Specially when we are now starting to see that more than 90% of those incarcerated were innocent, in the dozens of U.S. contractor operated torture and interrogation facilities.

            Its good that Rumsfeld is being scapegoated for this debacle. Now is the time for Bush, Osama, Chenney, Douglas Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle........ and all these terrorists to be brought to justice.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by lulldapull View Post
              If Rumsfeld is now open to impeachment, that should also open the door for Bush, Chenny, Wolfowitz, Perle and the whole Neocon cabal in Washington.

              Setting up and institutionalising torture is a very serious crime. Specially when we are now starting to see that more than 90% of those incarcerated were innocent, in the dozens of U.S. contractor operated torture and interrogation facilities.

              Its good that Rumsfeld is being scapegoated for this debacle. Now is the time for Bush, Osama, Chenney, Douglas Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle........ and all these terrorists to be brought to justice.
              First, you never answered the question.

              Second, can you post a link to the source that says over 90% of those incarcerated were innocent? I'd like to see that.

              Third, how does someone holding no office get impeached exactly? Rumsfeld stepped down.

              Last, there's a reason democrats will not pursue impeachment. Namely, they know that they have no grounds.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
                First, you never answered the question.

                Second, can you post a link to the source that says over 90% of those incarcerated were innocent? I'd like to see that.

                Third, how does someone holding no office get impeached exactly? Rumsfeld stepped down.

                Last, there's a reason democrats will not pursue impeachment. Namely, they know that they have no grounds.
                In all honesty it is beyond the scope of this thread for me to provide a gazillion links freely available to the institutionalisation of torture under the chain of command leading directly to the Defense Secretary.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by lulldapull View Post
                  In all honesty it is beyond the scope of this thread for me to provide a gazillion links freely available to the institutionalisation of torture under the chain of command leading directly to the Defense Secretary.
                  All you need to do is provide one - this should be easy since you claim there are a gazillion. Post your best one that demonstrates that Secretary Rumsfeld is fully culpable for torture.
                  "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Major,

                    You're banging your head against the wall. Lull was previously banned just for this kind of behaviour. He will lead you in circles of innuendo without providing one solid piece of evidence even when you keep proving his points wrong. He will not yield his innuendo points.

                    My best advice is for you to put him on your ignore list. It will save your sanity.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      Major,

                      You're banging your head against the wall. Lull was previously banned just for this kind of behaviour. He will lead you in circles of innuendo without providing one solid piece of evidence even when you keep proving his points wrong. He will not yield his innuendo points.

                      My best advice is for you to put him on your ignore list. It will save your sanity.
                      Sir,

                      I've learned from Bill that short and sweet can get the job done. Anyways, the choice is his. He's claimed that there are a gazillion documents - he'll look pretty weak when he doesn't produce a single one.

                      If he wants to discuss some substance, then I'm game. In either case, the ball is in his court.
                      "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by shek View Post
                        Who have they killed in contravention of law?
                        Here's one
                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manadel_al-Jamadi
                        Wouldn't have known of course except his photo was taken.
                        In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                        Leibniz

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                          Major,

                          You're banging your head against the wall. Lull was previously banned just for this kind of behaviour. He will lead you in circles of innuendo without providing one solid piece of evidence even when you keep proving his points wrong. He will not yield his innuendo points.

                          My best advice is for you to put him on your ignore list. It will save your sanity.
                          Hey buddy, circling with innuendo, while you munch on and garggle the stage managed propaganda is one thing, but dismissing a fact of life that just happened to be the hallmark of U.S. govt. for scape goating the vulnerable in the position of power or authoruity. Rummy just got thrown out to the dogs.

                          Here's another one from the Jurist:

                          November 10, 2006
                          Don't Leave Town, Don
                          The War Crimes Case Against Rumsfeld

                          By MARJORIE COHN

                          As the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives and were on the verge of taking over the Senate, George W. Bush announced that Donald Rumsfeld was out and Robert Gates was in as Secretary of Defense. When Bush is being run out of town, he knows how to get out in the front of the crowd and make it look like he's leading the parade. The Rumsfeld-Gates swap is a classic example.

                          The election was a referendum on the war. The dramatic results prove that the overwhelming majority of people in this country don't like the disaster Bush has created in Iraq. So rather than let the airwaves fill up with beaming Democrats and talk of the horrors of Iraq, Bush changed the subject and fired Rumsfeld. Now, when the Democrats begin to investigate what went wrong, Rumsfeld will no longer be the controversial public face of the war.

                          Rumsfeld had come under fire from many quarters, not the least of which was a gaggle of military officers who had been clamoring for his resignation. Bush said he decided to oust Rumsfeld before Tuesday's voting but lied to reporters so it wouldn't affect the election. Putting aside the incredulity of that claim, Bush likely waited to see if there would be a changing of the legislative guard before giving Rumsfeld his walking papers. If the GOP had retained control of Congress, Bush would probably have retained Rumsfeld. But in hindsight, Bush has to wish he had ejected Rumsfeld before the election to demonstrate a new direction in the Iraq war to angry voters.

                          Rumsfeld's sin was not in failing to develop a winning strategy for Iraq. There is no winning in Iraq, because we never belonged there in the first place. The war in Iraq is a war of aggression. It violates the United Nations Charter which only permits one country to invade another in self-defense or with the blessing of the Security Council.

                          Donald Rumsfeld was one of the primary architects of the Iraq war. On September 15, 2001, in a meeting at Camp David, Rumsfeld suggested an attack on Iraq because he was deeply worried about the availability of "good targets in Afghanistan." Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill reported that Rumsfeld articulated his hope to "dissuade" other nations from "asymmetrical challenges" to U.S. power. Rumsfeld's support for a preemptive attack on Iraq "matched with plans for how the world's second largest oil reserve might be divided among the world's contractors made for an irresistible combination," Ron Suskind wrote after interviewing O'Neill.

                          Rumsfeld defensively sought to decouple oil access from regime change in Iraq when he appeared on CBS News on November 15, 2002. In a Macbeth moment, Rumsfeld proclaimed the United States' beef with Iraq has "nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil." The Secretary doth protest too much.

                          Prosecuting a war of aggression isn't Rumsfeld's only crime. He also participated in the highest levels of decision-making that allowed the extrajudicial execution of several people. Willful killing is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, which constitutes a war crime. In his book, Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib, Seymour Hersh described the "unacknowledged" special-access program (SAP) established by a top-secret order Bush signed in late 2001 or early 2002. It authorized the Defense Department to set up a clandestine team of Special Forces operatives to defy international law and snatch, or assassinate, anyone considered a "high-value" Al Qaeda operative, anywhere in the world. Rumsfeld expanded SAP into Iraq in August 2003.

                          But Rumsfeld's crimes don't end there. He sanctioned the use of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, which are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and thus constitute war crimes. Rumsfeld approved interrogation techniques that included the use of dogs, removal of clothing, hooding, stress positions, isolation for up to 30 days, 20-hour interrogations, and deprivation of light and auditory stimuli. According to Seymour Hersh, Rumsfeld sanctioned the use of physical coercion and sexual humiliation to extract information from prisoners. Rumsfeld also authorized waterboarding, where the interrogator induces the sensation of imminent death by drowning. Waterboarding is widely considered a form of torture.

                          Rumsfeld was intimately involved with the interrogation of a Saudi detainee, Mohamed al-Qahtani, at Guantánamo in late 2002. General Geoffrey Miller, who later transferred many of his harsh interrogation techniques to Abu Ghaib, supervised the interrogation and gave Rumsfeld weekly updates on his progress. During a six-week period, al-Qahtani was stripped naked, forced to wear women's underwear on his head, denied bathroom access, threatened with dogs, forced to perform tricks while tethered to a dog leash, and subjected to sleep deprivation. Al-Qahtani was kept in solitary confinement for 160 days. For 48 days out of 54, he was interrogated for 18 to 20 hours a day.

                          Even though Rumsfeld didn't personally carry out the torture and mistreatment of prisoners, he authorized it. Under the doctrine of command responsibility, a commander can be liable for war crimes committed by his inferiors if he knew or should have known they would be committed and did nothing to stop of prevent them. The U.S. War Crimes Act provides for prosecution of a person who commits war crimes and prescribes life imprisonment, or even the death penalty if the victim dies.

                          Although intending to signal a new direction in Iraq with his nomination of Gates to replace Rumsfeld, Bush has no intention of leaving Iraq. He is building huge permanent U.S. military bases there. Gates at the helm of the Defense Department, Bush said, "can help make the necessary adjustments in our approach." Bush hopes he can bring congressional Democrats on board by convincing them he will simply fight a smarter war.

                          But this war can never get smarter. Nearly 3,000 American soldiers and more than 650,000 Iraqi civilians have died and tens of thousands have been wounded. Our national debt has skyrocketed with the billions Bush has pumped into the war. Now that there is a new day in Congress, there must be a new push to end the war. That means a demand that Congress cut off its funds.

                          And the war criminals must be brought to justice - beginning with Donald Rumsfeld. On November 14, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the National Lawyers Guild, and other organizations will ask the German federal prosecutor to initiate a criminal investigation into the war crimes of Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials. Although Bush has immunized his team from prosecution in the International Criminal Court, they could be tried in any country under the well-established principle of universal jurisdiction.

                          Donald Rumsfeld may be out of sight, but he will not be out of mind. The chickens have come home to roost.

                          Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, is president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists. Her new book, Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law, will be published this spring by PoliPointPress.

                          This column originally appeared in the Jurist.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by parihaka View Post
                            Here's one
                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manadel_al-Jamadi
                            Wouldn't have known of course except his photo was taken.
                            So which administration member killed him or ordered him killed? Bush? Cheney? Rumsfeld?
                            "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by shek View Post
                              So which administration member killed him or ordered him killed? Bush? Cheney? Rumsfeld?
                              Shek like I said....we can flood this thread with as much lefty articles as you want. Truth is everyone just about is just disgusted with this war. Heck even Time magazine's got Rummy's mug showin him up for a possible trial for war crime charges. Look at this:


                              Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse
                              A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the outgoing Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo
                              By ADAM ZAGORIN



                              Posted Friday, Nov. 10, 2006
                              Just days after his resignation, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

                              The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called "20th hijacker" and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a "special interrogation plan," personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.

                              Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that one of the witnesses who will testify on their behalf is former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq. Karpinski — who the lawyers say will be in Germany next week to publicly address her accusations in the case — has issued a written statement to accompany the legal filing, which says, in part: "It was clear the knowledge and responsibility [for what happened at Abu Ghraib] goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ."

                              A spokesperson for the Pentagon told TIME there would be no comment since the case has not yet been filed.

                              Along with Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Tenet, the other defendants in the case are Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone; former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee; former deputy assisant attorney general John Yoo; General Counsel for the Department of Defense William James Haynes II; and David S. Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Senior military officers named in the filing are General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top Army official in Iraq; Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of Guantanamo; senior Iraq commander, Major General Walter Wojdakowski; and Col. Thomas Pappas, the one-time head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib.

                              Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides "universal jurisdiction" allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world. Indeed, a similar, but narrower, legal action was brought in Germany in 2004, which also sought the prosecution of Rumsfeld. The case provoked an angry response from Pentagon, and Rumsfeld himself was reportedly upset. Rumsfeld's spokesman at the time, Lawrence DiRita, called the case a "a big, big problem." U.S. officials made clear the case could adversely impact U.S.-Germany relations, and Rumsfeld indicated he would not attend a major security conference in Munich, where he was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, unless Germany disposed of the case. The day before the conference, a German prosecutor announced he would not pursue the matter, saying there was no indication that U.S. authorities and courts would not deal with allegations in the complaint.

                              In bringing the new case, however, the plaintiffs argue that circumstances have changed in two important ways. Rumsfeld's resignation, they say, means that the former Defense Secretary will lose the legal immunity usually accorded high government officials. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that the German prosecutor's reasoning for rejecting the previous case — that U.S. authorities were dealing with the issue — has been proven wrong.

                              "The utter and complete failure of U.S. authorities to take any action to investigate high-level involvement in the torture program could not be clearer," says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a U.S.-based non-profit helping to bring the legal action in Germany. He also notes that the Military Commissions Act, a law passed by Congress earlier this year, effectively blocks prosecution in the U.S. of those involved in detention and interrogation abuses of foreigners held abroad in American custody going to back to Sept. 11, 2001. As a result, Ratner contends, the legal arguments underlying the German prosecutor's previous inaction no longer hold up.

                              Whatever the legal merits of the case, it is the latest example of efforts in Western Europe by critics of U.S. tactics in the war on terror to call those involved to account in court. In Germany, investigations are under way in parliament concerning cooperation between the CIA and German intelligence on rendition — the kidnapping of suspected terrorists and their removal to third countries for interrogation. Other legal inquiries involving rendition are under way in both Italy and Spain.

                              U.S. officials have long feared that legal proceedings against "war criminals" could be used to settle political scores. In 1998, for example, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet — whose military coup was supported by the Nixon administration — was arrested in the U.K. and held for 16 months in an extradition battle led by a Spanish magistrate seeking to charge him with war crimes. He was ultimately released and returned to Chile. More recently, a Belgian court tried to bring charges against then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for alleged crimes against Palestinians.

                              For its part, the Bush Administration has rejected adherence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on grounds that it could be used to unjustly prosecute U.S. officials. The ICC is the first permanent tribunal established to prosecute war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity.

                              http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...557842,00.html

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X