It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush impeached for federal crimes?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Is this a potential headline?

I am torn in regards to Bush's recent admittance to authorizing taps without a court order.

This is a federal crime, I fail to see anything other than the black and white of this subject and I live very much in a gray reality.

How long do you think it will be before Bush is impeached?

If he is Impeached and removed from office.. is that even a more horrifying idea that Cheney would be president?

Thoughts?




posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
There has been impeachments for less, I can only hope.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I don't think so. After all, "if you are not with us then you are against us". Only Sith think in such absolutes.


But seriously, somehow people aren't up in arms like I thought that they would be now that this has come out. I believe that people are too frightened by the hype that has been spun around the whole 'terrorist agenda' to do any more then whisper behind closed doors about it. I am only left feeling sad for the people that refuse to believe where this is all leading us.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   
If it is true that nothing will be done because of fear of .. whatever.. then that is even more frightening a result.

If he is not impeached.. then that jsut reinforces the idea that he can do whatever he wants witout fear of reprocusion. All he has to do is say it is in the name of national security.

Round up all those brown people and put them in camps.. it is for national security.

It woulden't be the first time.. we had inturment camps for Japanese Americans during WWII but at least the presedent got permision from congress and the courts to do that.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
The warrants didnt matter in the first place, the purpose of the taps was never to use in court as evidence against the offenders. It would be inadmiciple if they did. The purpose was to provide grounds for warrants to take investigations further, it was just an easier way to obtain warrants, kinda like a short cut.

As for impeachment, I dont know. Its up to congress to decide. You cant blame Bush if he doesnt get impeached since it is congress' job to decide that. If anyone knows constitutional law I would like to hear their take becuase I have zero knowledge in that area.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   
With a Republican dominated legislature I think chances of impeachment are very low no matter what he does or how grossly illegal it was. There seems to be some dispute as to the legality of the wiretapping, but it doesn't seem to be as clear cut a case as some Bush opponents would like to think.

Similarly, it's not at all clear (in the legal sense at least) that Bush's administration deliberately "lied" to get the war he wanted. What they did was a bit more subtle, promoting intellegence information that helped make the case for war while downplaying information that didn't.

I would say a Bush impeachment, without some more concrete evidence or major new revelations of illegal activities, is extremely unlikely. If the Dem's sweep the '06 congressional elections it becomes a possibility.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   
I am not talking about the legality of the war itself.. Congress was convinced by evidence that was or was not valid or bushes promises of how it was to be handled and they voted and it passed... legally.

However, in order to wiretap a conversation there are two ways to do it legally and only 2.

Congressional court issues a warrant.... legal .. but slow.

Special court is held at convince of executive request and a warrant is issued with minimal delay. There is even a loophole that allows the wiretapping of citizens before the special court has issued the warrant allowing the request to be made to the special court after the fact in the case of an immediate need for the tap. Bush did not even do this. Not a single warrant was issues by either court at any time for these taps.

Regardless of wither these taps are going to be used for arrest, are admissible or not. It is a federal offence to do it without a warrant.

Both Democrats and Republicans are calling for investigation on this so I don't think having house majority will stop it.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
There has been impeachments for less, I can only hope.


Copy that. Please let them impeachment this clown



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by helium3

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
There has been impeachments for less, I can only hope.


Copy that. Please let them impeachment this clown


And the other one, yeah Cheney

God only knows but we'll probably be worse off with him in.
Can both be impeached ?


edit to add question - why wasn't this put in PTS ? Just curious, I have read that PTS doesn't get enough activity and yet things like this are posted here in ATS. I could be on the wrong track tho.

[edit on 20-12-2005 by ImJaded]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   


Both Democrats and Republicans are calling for investigation on this so I don't think having house majority will stop it.


Yeah but just because they have an investigation, even if it concludes the President broke the law, doesn't mean they're going to impeach him. Frankly I'd love to see it, but with the current Congress I don't see it leading anywhere.

Clinton's impeachment was a purely partisan political manuever, I don't see many Republicans as likely to line up behind an attempt to impeach Bush no matter what he did. He could summarily execute a couple anti-war activists on the White House steps and half of them would try to give him a medal for it.

[edit on 12/20/05 by xmotex]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Potential headline:

Bush Charged on War Crimes, Killing Americans, Stealing Trillions, Rape, Child Abuse, Lies, ....



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   
...actually there is a third way.

Since World War Two, once war has been declared [as was done with Afghanistan] the President can allow anyone to be placed on a tap for the first 15 days.

BushCo, are attempting to play a loop hole claiming that the 15 days is only suggestion and not binding upon them. It is a joke really, but he will get away with it - we all know that the chances are so slim in getting him out of office before. Let's jsut ride it out and hope he leaves in 2008.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   
First-- of course Clinton's impeachment was partisan-- it was political and everything political is partisan. However, it was also legitimate. A sitting President perjured himself in sworn testimony to a grand jury. He could've told the truth or he could've pleaded the fifth, but he did neither-- he LIED. Lying under oath is a crime. It's not just a bad thing, or a questionable tactic, or a minor slip-- it's an actionable felony. While the Republicans certainly were out to get him (as each party is ALWAYS out to get the other), the impeachment couldn't have actually happened had he not committed an actual crime. And on the subject of partisanship-- if the Democrats win a Congressional majority in 2006, Bush stands a good chance of facing impeachment if he so much as jaywalks. I'd be curious how many of the people who lament the "partisan" nature of Clinton's impeachment would do the same over Bush's.

Anyway-- next point-- in order to bring impeachment proceedings against an officeholder, there must at least be convincing evidence that the officeholder has committed a specific, actionable crime. International law doesn't count-- political rules don't count-- "crimes against humanity" don't count-- we're talking about an existing law that's on the books in the USA-- a law with the breaking of which any of us might conceivably be charged. Further, again since we're speaking of a political process, the crime in question has to be something obvious, simple and, perhaps most importantly, something with which no other current politician could be charged. The Republicans were reasonably safe attempting to impeach Clinton for perjury since perjury is not a requisite part of the world of politics. There was no way that it could be used against them unless they also perjured themselves and none of them (at least those who were in office at that time) had done so.

So-- can and will Bush be impeached for this violation of this particular federal law? No way. First, it's a vague issue to begin with. There are already, as noted, two different ways in which such wiretaps can be legally accomplished, and the Patriot Act vastly expanded the ability to engage in such wiretaps in ways that have not been entirely explored or, more to the point, legally challenged, and, as Odium noted, the administration has already come up with a potential loophole. If there's any room to weasel out of it, the administration will and, more to the point, the Congress will let them. See-- the entire thing hinges on a potential abuse of power, and abusing power is the name of the game in Washington. If Congress were to try to get up and bang on the podium and rant about "abuse of power," that's a rant that would absolutely turn around and bite them on the butt.

And, of course, the Republicans hold the Congressional majority, so, politics being what it is, it's just not going to happen anyway.

The only way, for the time being, that Bush might be impeached is if it can be demonstrated that he has committed an obvious, simple and non-politically expedient felony. Nothing other than that will serve to justify impeachment proceedings, honestly no matter who the president is or which party holds the Congressional majority. No blatant felony = no impeachment.

And that, of course, is why Bush refused to testify to the 9/11 Commission unless he was allowed to do so without being under oath, but that's a different subject...



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Sorry but I would rather a president lying about a BJ than what the current one is lying about



And I think we allknow it is no secret why Bush didn't testify about 911


[edit on 20-12-2005 by ImJaded]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   
The subject of the lie is legally immaterial.

Aren't we discussing impeachment here? Impeachment is a legal process, dependant on established legal guidelines. The reason that Clinton was impeached was that he lied UNDER OATH. Lying, regardless of the subject, is reprehensible, but lying UNDER OATH, again regardless of the subject, is a crime. That's the point. We're not talking about what's better or worse-- we're talking about specific, defined issues of law.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrBunny
Special court is held at convince of executive request and a warrant is issued with minimal delay. There is even a loophole that allows the wiretapping of citizens before the special court has issued the warrant allowing the request to be made to the special court after the fact in the case of an immediate need for the tap. Bush did not even do this. Not a single warrant was issues by either court at any time for these taps.

It is called "warrentless" surveillance.
Here, try this one on for size:


The voices of outrage misread the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Title 50 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Section 1802, "Electronic surveillance authorization without court order," reads: "[T]he President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year," provided a series of conditions are met. Surveillance must be directed only at agents of foreign powers; there can be no likely surveillance of a "U.S. person" (more on this term below); and there must be strict congressional oversight in the intelligence committees. Mr. Bush says he has complied with these laws.

No Crime in Bush's Spying
Thank You for Wiretapping
Bush Submits His Laws for War
AG: Surveillance Legal And Authorized
My second post to: Bush Allowed NSA to Spy on U.S. International Calls








seekerof

[edit on 20-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Here's 15 crimes bush should be impeached over ! So i dont think they will eva, cause if they dont impeach Bush Jnr over the the now famous Downing Street Memo. Why would they for the other 14 listed ? Not to mention all the bones in this clown closet that could get him impeached





1) The now famous Downing Street Memo, along with the testimony of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil constitute direct evidence of a decision by Bush to invade a sovereign foreign nation on entirely specious grounds.

2) The decision to deploy chemical weapons in Fallujah came from Rumsfeld who no doubt covered his ass by receiving assent from Bush to use these banned weapons

3) The decision by Bush to dig up dirt on UN diplomats when the General Assembly was considering his ill-fated war resolution

4) Authorizing torture of POW's - a direct violation of the protocols of the Geneva Convention

5) Holding so called "non-combatant civilians" for an indefinite period of time ,depriving them of their day in court ,acess to counsel, and acess to family members who could plead their cause to the public.

6) Kidnapping so called "terror suspects" , placing them on Rendition Airways, and sending them to countries like Uzbekistan who boil these,untried, unconvicted people alive.

7) foreknowledge of 9/11 by Bush, Rice, and the top Neocons at the Pentagon . The only ones warned were Fmr. SF. Mayor Willie Brown, Salman Rushdie (Via Scotland Yard) and Ariel Sharon, who cancelled his trip to NYC scheduled for the weekend prior to 9/11.

8) Engaging in a massive voter suppression campaign in the state of Ohio to secure a second term by fraudulent means. Such activities carry criminal sanctions as outlined in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

9) Covering up the involvement of Mossad in 9/11. The fellow that secreted these spies and explosives experts out of country and back into Israel , Michael Chertoff, was promoted from Criminal Division of the Justice Dept to lead the Dept. of Homeland Security.!

10) The attempt to quash the testimony of Sibel Edmonds using the bogus shield of the States Secret Act.

11) Engaging in a sytematic campaign of depriving political dissidents of their 1st ammendment rights to condem Bush administration policy. Protesters are removed out of crowds and summarily placed in jail. The Secret Service, under orders of the President, conduct "Harassment and intimidation Interviews" of anti -Bush political activists.

12) Conspiring with Ken Lay to rip-off the the people of California by creating false energy shortages,thus creating the causus belli for charging energy consumers illegal, confiscatory rates. 13) Conspiring to rig the vote count in the state of Fl. by hacking optical scan machines and E-voting machines and covering up the latter by passing legislation in the state of Fl to prevent post-election examination of E-voting machines.

14) Illegally transferring $700 million from the budget for the war in Afghanistan for war preparations in Iraq in July 2002, without Congressional Approval. This is a Constitutional violation.

15) The "outing" of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

www.rense.com...




posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
The subject of the lie is legally immaterial.



Very true, it is a strictly legal issue. It is my opinion that Clinton should have simply stated that his relationships are not a matter of legal debate. If he did not want to fess up to being blown.

As for the title 50 document.. that will greatly depend on the later definition of "US Persons"

Personally I am torn between Lawful and Unlawful mindsets. I live by DC and see it every day.. people getting away with total BS because of semantics.

"Why no your honor.. I didn't kill that person... the bullets did." " Did I fire the gun? Well technically no.. The primer lighting the powder fired the gun and technically the gun companies designed the trigger mechanism so you could argue that it was they who fired the gun."

Clinton lied under oath, fact. But ya know what?.. It's a stupid fact, legally a crime, yes, absolutely, but law without insight dissolves into useless bureaucracy. For those fans of Adams.. we are very quickly becoming a Vogon Nation.

I guess, ultimately, I live in a fantasy world where I feel that people should be held responsible for their action or inaction. I know this will never be... Maybe I should just shave my head and become a monk in Japan where there is still an underlying thread of honor in society.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by helium3
Here's 15 crimes bush should be impeached over ! So i dont think they will eva, cause if they dont impeach Bush Jnr over the the now famous Downing Street Memo. Why would they for the other 14 listed ? Not to mention all the bones in this clown closet that could get him impeached





1) The now famous Downing Street Memo, along with the testimony of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil constitute direct evidence of a decision by Bush to invade a sovereign foreign nation on entirely specious grounds.

2) The decision to deploy chemical weapons in Fallujah came from Rumsfeld who no doubt covered his ass by receiving assent from Bush to use these banned weapons

3) The decision by Bush to dig up dirt on UN diplomats when the General Assembly was considering his ill-fated war resolution

4) Authorizing torture of POW's - a direct violation of the protocols of the Geneva Convention

5) Holding so called "non-combatant civilians" for an indefinite period of time ,depriving them of their day in court ,acess to counsel, and acess to family members who could plead their cause to the public.

6) Kidnapping so called "terror suspects" , placing them on Rendition Airways, and sending them to countries like Uzbekistan who boil these,untried, unconvicted people alive.

7) foreknowledge of 9/11 by Bush, Rice, and the top Neocons at the Pentagon . The only ones warned were Fmr. SF. Mayor Willie Brown, Salman Rushdie (Via Scotland Yard) and Ariel Sharon, who cancelled his trip to NYC scheduled for the weekend prior to 9/11.

8) Engaging in a massive voter suppression campaign in the state of Ohio to secure a second term by fraudulent means. Such activities carry criminal sanctions as outlined in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

9) Covering up the involvement of Mossad in 9/11. The fellow that secreted these spies and explosives experts out of country and back into Israel , Michael Chertoff, was promoted from Criminal Division of the Justice Dept to lead the Dept. of Homeland Security.!

10) The attempt to quash the testimony of Sibel Edmonds using the bogus shield of the States Secret Act.

11) Engaging in a sytematic campaign of depriving political dissidents of their 1st ammendment rights to condem Bush administration policy. Protesters are removed out of crowds and summarily placed in jail. The Secret Service, under orders of the President, conduct "Harassment and intimidation Interviews" of anti -Bush political activists.

12) Conspiring with Ken Lay to rip-off the the people of California by creating false energy shortages,thus creating the causus belli for charging energy consumers illegal, confiscatory rates. 13) Conspiring to rig the vote count in the state of Fl. by hacking optical scan machines and E-voting machines and covering up the latter by passing legislation in the state of Fl to prevent post-election examination of E-voting machines.

14) Illegally transferring $700 million from the budget for the war in Afghanistan for war preparations in Iraq in July 2002, without Congressional Approval. This is a Constitutional violation.

15) The "outing" of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

www.rense.com...

For one thing, your source is Rense, hardly considered by most members as a reliable source of info. But OK, I will answer these questions.

1)The Downing street memo has never been truely deemed authentic. This is becuase of the source said that he had only been able to make a copy of the memo rather than have the original. So therfore, this is not a legitamate argument.

2) There had been a thread on this before, no definative evidence of chemical weapons being used in Fallujia were found.
www.abovetopsecret.com...www.abovetopsecret.com...

3) He didnt have to dig up dirt on the UN, the media did that for us. Did Bush commit this scandal, NO, the UN did.
www.google.com...\

4) There is nothing that proves that the President authorized torture. So that argument goes right out the window.

5) Which "non-combatant" civilians have we held without rights? Padilla doesnt count because we know what his plans were. And those plans turned him into an enemy combatant.

6) Where is your proof that we sent them to Uzbekistan or whatever to be boiled? I havent seen proof of this.

7) The so called "9/11 conspiracy" is just that. A theory, and nothing more. No one has prooven that 9/11 was a conspiracy between the US and terrorists so your argument here is moot, if not non existent.

8) Voter suppression in Ohio? You mean the allegations from the green party of Ohio? I will grant you voting suppression and intimidation does happein, but it happens from both sides. This is not a one sided issue and it is one that need to be resolved at one.

9) Mossad in 9/11. Once again you are using opinion as fact. This could not be used beacuse in the 2 investigations of 9/11, nothing of this sort was found. Therefore youre point is once again based on a conspiracy theory, nothing that can or will ever be substantiated.

10) There was no attempt to squash Edmonds tetsimony, the Supreme Court ruled that the public did not need to know. National Security comes first before even you and I.

11) Haha, where has anyone been stopped form criticizing the Bush administration? You are now truley pulling stuff outta your ass.

12) Once again the allegation is simply one of the many conspiracy theories brought upon by those who hate Bush. That wont hold up in Congress, even if the majority was democrat.

13) You have a link for that allegation? I never saw it on the Congerssional website, thought if it were I'm sure it would have made headlines.

14) The outing of CIA operative Valerie Plume may have had nothing or everything to do with President Bush, that is for Congress to decide. You make to many assumtions and not even one quarter of which are based on facts. I suggest you come back with hard evidence rather than your own biased assumptions.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Why do people keep getting information from Rense.com and posting it on these forums? I personally don't believe one piece of information from that biased web site. You shouldn't either.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join