More and more legal experts calling for the impeachment of Bush

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Baltazar325

Senior member
Jun 17, 2004
363
1
0
Clinton was not impeached for getting brain in the White House. He was impeached for lying under oath to a Grand Jury. I am also still trying to figure out how Bush stole the election considering he won the majority of EC votes, which is how our system works. Sure, maybe we need a change in it but as of now, that's just how it is.
 

Michael

Elite member
Nov 19, 1999
5,435
234
106
rickn - It actually is a question of fact.

Please give me the link the the Supreme Court decision that appointed Bush to be President. You'll find an opinion that halted the recount in Florida therefore affirming the Electoral College delegates that voted for Bush. Courts rules all the time on recounts, but they do not have the power to appojnt the President. That was done by the American people via the process established by the Constitution and laws written since then.

Also, it is a historical fact that the votes for Bush + Perot together are greater than the number of votes for Clinton. Now Clinton won a majority of Electoral College votes and had more votes than any single candidate, but he didn't win the majority of votes.

Michael
 

hokiezilla

Member
Mar 9, 2003
181
0
0
Originally posted by: NumbersGuy
In recent history, Clinton was impeached for a few bjs that didn't hurt anybody,

Bush's insane adventure has killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

Impeach, tar, feather & run out of town on a rail, cowboy style


No, Clinton was impeached for lying under oath thereby obstructing Paula Jones ability to file a lawsuit based upon a law that HE SIGNED.
 

hokiezilla

Member
Mar 9, 2003
181
0
0
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
People need to look at the original intention of impeachment, not the current politcal usage against policies.

So how do you remove a homicidal usurper from office unless you impeach him first?

Or do you just grin and bear him? Or do you put on your extra special tinfoil hat and wave the flag? Or do you take comfort in your bank account? Or do you sing hail to the chief no matter what?


What are talking about? They did impeach Clinton.
 

rickn

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
7,064
0
0
Originally posted by: Michael
rickn - It actually is a question of fact.

Please give me the link the the Supreme Court decision that appointed Bush to be President. You'll find an opinion that halted the recount in Florida therefore affirming the Electoral College delegates that voted for Bush. Courts rules all the time on recounts, but they do not have the power to appojnt the President. That was done by the American people via the process established by the Constitution and laws written since then.

Also, it is a historical fact that the votes for Bush + Perot together are greater than the number of votes for Clinton. Now Clinton won a majority of Electoral College votes and had more votes than any single candidate, but he didn't win the majority of votes.

Michael

I think you take my comments to literally. Anyways, here's a wrap up of the 2000 presidential election and that pretty much leaves no doubt in my mind how the president for 2000 was selected.

and you're entitled to your interpretation.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
um, the OP's title is very misleading. Reread the first sentence, it states "...who approved...". At this time, their is absolutely NO evidence that shows that Bush approved of anything related to the prisoner abuses.

Just another case of misconstruing the words to satisfy your hopes.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Any talk of impeaching Bush is ridiculous. Let the American Voters decide if they want him as their President, not some other Politico's or worse, Lawyers!
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: rickn
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Bush stole the election? This is the greatest urban legend of our time... keep it alive please!

BTW, list of these 'legal experts' please.

he didn't steal the election, he was however the only president in my lifetime to appointed to his post by the Supreme Court. The MAJORITY of the American people elected Al Gore as their president

Another person who believes that LA, NY city and Chicago should be selectors of our President. :roll:
 

Fingolfin269

Lifer
Feb 28, 2003
17,948
31
91
Originally posted by: rickn
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Bush stole the election? This is the greatest urban legend of our time... keep it alive please!

BTW, list of these 'legal experts' please.

he didn't steal the election, he was however the only president in my lifetime to appointed to his post by the Supreme Court. The MAJORITY of the American people elected Al Gore as their president

Well, fortunately the population vote doesn't matter. How did the Supreme Court appoint him again?
 

Michael

Elite member
Nov 19, 1999
5,435
234
106
rickn -

"he didn't steal the election, he was however the only president in my lifetime to appointed to his post by the Supreme Court." Those are your words. they are factually inaccurate.

The link you sent confirms what I just said.

The Supreme Court did not appoint Bush President.

I agree that more individual voters voted for Gore than Bush. That is a historical fact. Not how the President is elected, but ayou are not incorrect in that statement. Like I said, the majority of voters didn't want Clinton as their President in 1992 but he was elected anyways.

Michael
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
400 liberal, academic, lawyers call for impeachment of Bush..

pathetic...there must be thousands of these Democrats in academia, and they could only get 400 to sign on to this piece of propaganda?

geez, sounds like Kerry is in real trouble...

why not a letter by Democrat Senators calling for Bush's impeachment, or Democrat Representatives calling for Bush's impeachment.....

Dems would never do that because they couldn't get all the Dems to sign it!
If they could, they would have done it already..

weak....you notice it's gotten very little "play" in the "mainstream" press.
 

hokiezilla

Member
Mar 9, 2003
181
0
0
Originally posted by: GrGr
Legal scholars say condoning abuse could be impeachable offense

By LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - More than 400 legal scholars from across the country urged Congress Wednesday to consider impeaching President Bush and any high-level administration officials who approved the Iraqi prisoner abuses.

In a letter released by two Harvard Law School professors, scholars asked Congress to identify everyone who should be held accountable for the torture at Abu Ghraib prison, and determine what sanctions are appropriate. The sanctions, they said, could include "impeachment and removal from office of any civil officer of the United States responsible."

But Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., meeting with the professors, declined to specifically address the impeachment issue. He instead said the best way to correct the matter is to "elect John Kerry" president.


In other words, the Hero of Chappaquiddick, aka Ted Kennedy, is just blowing smoke as usual. He has no legal standing to bring articles of impeachment and he knows it.

This is all politics and nothing more.
 

Helenihi

Senior member
Dec 25, 2001
379
0
0
Where does it say they're calling for his impeachment? Looks like they're calling for an investigation and removal from office for those responsible for Abu Ghraib.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Only what is stated in the article is known. The list or who "is calling" is not available.
The article headlines specifically mention impeachment. Maybe that is a bias of the reporter.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Here is the letter with the list (in the link) of those who have signed it:


Letter sent to the United States Congress regarding recent human rights issues in Iraq


June 16, 2004

To: Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.


As members of university faculties in law, international relations, diplomacy, and public policy, we write to register our objection to the systematic violation of human rights practiced or permitted by authorities of the United States within occupied Iraq during recent months: we request Congressional action to ensure accountability for such violations and to safeguard against such egregious abuses in the future. Current circumstances require that all transcend partisan politics or considerations. Action by Congress is necessary to promote a rule of law produced and enforced through a democratic process and to protect the physical and psychological integrity of all people consistent with the traditions of our nation.


I. Accountability for human rights violations
Congressional action is necessary to examine and ensure accountability for the organizational and individual failures that allowed persons within the control of U.S. forces to be subjected to acts of torture and to cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

There can be no doubt that the acts of abuse in Abu Ghraib prison constitute violations of both the domestic and international legal obligations of the United States and its agents. Executive Branch officials have admitted as much. International humanitarian law provides that those classified as prisoners of war are entitled to special protections against such abuses under the Third Geneva Convention, ratified by the United States in 1955. Inhabitants of occupied territories are protected under the Fourth Geneva Convention, also ratified by the United States in 1955, against physical or moral coercion to obtain information from them. The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ratified by the United States in 1994, requires that States party take measures to prevent both torture, and other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The Constitution of the United States protects prisoners from cruel and unusual punishment.

Accepting the applicability of international and domestic law, military officials have initiated prosecutions of lower level personnel. That response, while necessary, is clearly insufficient. Congress has an obligation to investigate and assess responsibility at all levels of the Executive Branch from the highest officers on down for the abuses in Abu Ghraib and other Iraqi prisons.

Despite clear and repeated notice [1], abuse of detainees has been both frequent and pervasive during the military occupation of Iraq. The fact that military officials failed after such notice to identify and eradicate the pattern of abuse itself constitutes a grave breach of responsibility.

In addition, a growing body of evidence indicates that the abuses practiced on detainees under American control are the consequence of policies developed at the highest levels in the months and years immediately preceding the scandal. First, there are reports that harsh interrogation tactics, designed for use against only the most serious terrorist suspects and themselves violative of humanitarian law, have been authorized and applied generally against detainees in Iraq. Second, authorization to coerce detainees to speak creates the potential for grave abuse. It is thus evident that very clear lines must be established and vigorously policed. Yet authorities failed to supervise subordinates adequately, or to establish minimal safeguards against abuse. Third, the dilatory response by military and other officials to reports by international agencies, human rights groups, and the media concerning egregious abuse operated as a predictable signal to those on various levels below that their admittedly illegal conduct was condoned, accepted, or encouraged. Fourth, Executive Branch officials have diverged from past practice by asserting presidential power to designate certain prisoners as not entitled to any judicial or other meaningful review of any aspects of the legality of their confinement, including imposition of torture. That approach to detainees created a culture facilitating disregard for the protections required to be accorded prisoners in Iraq.


II. Democratic definition of policies involving coercion

Military and intelligence officials have acknowledged that official U.S. policy now involves use of coercive methods that are morally questionable and that may violate international and domestic law. The question whether various forms of coercion against persons under American control can be justified goes to the heart of our identity as a democratic community.

Given the profound problems it may raise as a moral, legal, and constitutional matter, any decision to adopt a coercive interrogation policy and the definition of any such policy, if adopted, should be made within the strict confines of a democratic process. While the Executive Branch should retain sufficient authority to conduct military affairs, basic principles and policies regarding human rights must be defined by a representative and accountable body acting in transparent and deliberative fashion. In turn, the courts must retain ultimate responsibility for judicial oversight in order to ensure that the law meets constitutional requirements.

Thus, insofar as Executive Branch officials have authored and implemented a coercive interrogation policy, that policy must be submitted to Congress for examination and debate. Congress should determine afresh its wisdom, its consistency with basic democratic principles of humane treatment, and its conformity with international and domestic law. If any such policy were to be adopted by Congress, the reviewability of such law through the operation of the courts in due course must be assured.


Conclusion

Given the accumulation of reliable evidence demonstrating the practice of torture and degrading treatment of detainees by U.S. forces, and given Executive responsibility for creating the conditions enabling such practice to occur, and with regard for democratic responsibility with respect to these issues at the heart of our understanding of our nation, its culture and values, we ask that Congress take action to:

(1) assess responsibility for the abuses that have taken place, identifying the officials at all levels who must be held accountable for enabling these abuses to occur and for the failure to investigate them, and determining what sanctions, including impeachment and removal from office of any civil officer of the United States responsible, may be appropriate;

(2) decide whether the U.S. should have an official policy of coercion in connection with interrogation, and if so what form it should take as well as what safeguards it should include to protect against abuses in violation of the policy.


Sincerely,

[The undersigned]


Iraq letter
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
The letter has been signed by 56 law teachers at Harvard Law School, including former Dean Robert C. Clark, and Professors Laurence Tribe, Alan Dershowitz, Lani Guinier, Detlev Vagts and Frank Michelman. It has also been signed by leading experts on international relations, public policy and constitutional law across the nation, including Yale University Professor Bruce Ackerman; Professor Philip Alston, director of NYU's Center for Human Rights and Global Justice; Jose Alvarez, director of the Center on Global Legal Problems at Columbia Law School; Duke Law School Professor Paul Carrington; Georgetown Law School Professor David Cole; Princeton Professor Richard Falk; Columbia Law School Professor Jack Greenberg; Kennedy School of Government Professor Christopher Jencks; UCLA Law School Professor Kenneth Karst; Juliette Kayyem of the Kennedy School of Government; University of Texas Law School Professor Sanford Levinson; David Scheffer, former U.S. ambassador at large for war crimes issues; and Harvard University Professor William Julius Wilson.

Hmm, looks like Harvard wants to disassociate itself from a former graduate
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Michael
The majority didn't vote for Clinton either. It is moot because that is not how Presidents get elected. Bush was not appointed by the Supreme Court, he was voted in by the Electoral College.

Again, as was mentioned, these are myths.

Michael

Well... we meet again, Michael.
The issue is not did Bush receive the required Electoral College votes but rather, were the electors from the state of Florida chosen as the result of all 'legitimate' votes being considered and counted. I'm not speaking to votes that never occurred as the result of 'other' issues occurring in Florida in areas populated by probable Gore voters. I'm speaking to votes that did occur and for 'mechanical' reasons were not counted.
The Constitution does mandate when the submission of electors is to occur so to preclude the Congress from selecting the President. Maybe a bit like Jefferson (Hamilton/Burr). I guess the USSC's actions didn't elect Bush but, the legal issue should have been a Florida one. I go back and forth on this but I don't think Bush et. al. had legal standing in Federal Court.. the 11th should have sent the issue back.

Lovers of the Rule of Law put it above all else. The 'chips' fall as they may. It is unfair to label them partisan. It boils down to how each understands and applies the law to the facts.
I see no reason to impeach at this time. Hearings in Congress must occur to determine some facts first. I won't claim Bush knew, condoned or ordered anything... not at this point.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
GrGr,
That is some document.
Is the understanding of the law... the opinion rendered accurate. That is; can a reasonable person with legal training conclude from a reading of the law (Geneva Conventions) that the Al Qaeda and Taliban 'prisioners' are not covered? I can't! In fact, everyone is covered one way or another according to my reading of it.
Does it, none the less, form the nexus betwix the White House and the Prison events?
Is the President immune because he received an opinon upon which he relied?

This is really a bunch of issues that need being addressed one at a time.

I will say, at this point, that given the President, using the best information available from the best sources available within government (if this is true), is not open for impeachment nor cause of action in a US Court. He may, along with others, be open for other International indictment(s) in this matter. I doubt that will occur, however. Well maybe he et. al. would be from a civil POV rather than a criminal one.

edit: I should add that the Sec State's opinion does make clear a division regarding opinion on the matter and points toward culpability more so than not... but, the standard is 'reasonable doubt' and not 'preponderance of the evidence'
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
29,569
2,247
126
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Politcal opportunists. If they can not get the office legally, they will try to destroy it.

Sounds like sour grapes still from 2000
 

wirelessenabled

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2001
2,190
41
91
The Liberal's only method of debate is to appeal to the emotions of mis-educated and illogical persons. Liberals seek to insult and discredit anyone who dares to disagree with them, especially in the college classroom. Why? Because the facts of logic and history do not support the agenda they are seeking to advance. Genesys sig line

You should take a look at this IQ vs voting record in 2000 Presidential Election

Tell me who got the votes of the morons?
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,572
66
91
www.bing.com
Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
The Liberal's only method of debate is to appeal to the emotions of mis-educated and illogical persons. Liberals seek to insult and discredit anyone who dares to disagree with them, especially in the college classroom. Why? Because the facts of logic and history do not support the agenda they are seeking to advance. Genesys sig line

You should take a look at this IQ vs voting record in 2000 Presidential Election

Tell me who got the votes of the morons?

That would require a relationship between "mis-educated"/"illogical persons" and IQ

I have an IQ of 137 (much higher than the Avg IQ of Connecticut) yet I voted for Bush in '00 My little brother on the other hand scored a 152, he's a frikkin genious by many peoples standards. But in all honesty, if you met my little brother, youd think he was an idiot, because he is. He can ace any test you put in front of him, but in all honesty, hes frikkiin retarted, im not kidding, the guy has made more stupid mistakes than anyone I know.

I have been duped by people with half my IQ more than once (I voted for Dukakis in 88 and Clinton in 92!!!) Yet I can outsmart my genious little bro on a regular basis.

IMHO, IQ means next to nothing.

But for the fun of it, I will argue anyways. That survey fails to realize that the average IQ of each state comprises both Democrats and Republicans (and independents for that matter)

For simplicitys sake, check out this example:
We have 2 states, each state has exactly 100 people;
State 1 has:
49 Republicans with an avg IQ of 120
51 Democrats with an avg IQ of 95

State 2 has:
49 Democrats with an Avg IQ of 110
51 Republicans with an avg IQ of 109

So in the perspective of your link we have:
State 1, avg IQ: 109.7 - Voted Democrat
State 2, avg IQ: 109.49 - Voted Republican

So the "Smarter" State voted Democrat! Yet theres this thing called a scientific method, which we first studied in what, 4th grade? Its a handy little method that attempts to exclude as many variations from an expirement as possible, in an effort to view only the variable or relationship being studied.

So, in the interest of the scientific method, lets remove the geographic variable of our 2 states so that now we have:
100 Democrats: Avg IQ: 102.35
100 Republicans: Avg IQ: 116.84

Wow, a simple modification and completely opposite results.

This only backs up the originally quoted statement, that Liberals prey on the miseducated, because an educated person would easily see the flaws in the graph that you linked.

heres a more scientific survey: http://intelligencetest.com/cgi-bin/config/ct/ct.pl?name=six&amp;action=view
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
Politcal opportunists. If they can not get the office legally, they will try to destroy it.

You must be talking about Ken Starr and the rest of the Republican attack machine....
 

boran

Golden Member
Jun 17, 2001
1,526
0
76
Originally posted by: MadRat
Bush is innocent. They need to impeach Dumsfeld and Ashcroft.

I have to agree with this,

bush might not be the brightest candle, he is not inherently evil or something, hell as gouvernour of texas i'd have voted for him (if you've seen the bush vs bush movie you might know what I mean)
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |